is it fair for the jan 6 committee to subpoena a senior advisor to the president?

I could have, but I don't favor "kangaroo courts", so instead I gave you a researched, thoughtful reply instead of a smateass hollow snippy tantrum, like I'm replying to now.

 

Exactly, people who put morals and Country over party and idol worshiping!

 

Than the last 17 years then? And compared to how many bills filed? What's your point?

You wanted evidence of Congress engaging in criminal investigations I gave you the current one the Jan 6 committee. Have you not been keeping up with in what they are engaged?

I don't know that they don't "reflect" American but what they are supposed to reflect is THE CONSTITIUTION not popular opinion. I don't care about Republican or Democrat justice I care about justice UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Nope filet mignon.

Where did you get the idea that Congressional elections are the ONLY elections in this country. They make up a small percentage of elections in this country and Congress only determines when they will take place so they all happen at the same time.

Doesn't take my conservative view to see how blatantly partisan and outside the norms the current Democrats are operating in.

 

I have no idea what you’re referring to in your first sentence.

Eastman retired.

Did he know that this activity was unconstitutional?

Much of this depends on the former Presidents state of mind or intent. The public record points to an OLC briefing. The Committee’s letter to Ivanka contained references to events and conversations around it. Her quoted comment about Pence plays into it. The Mark Meadows emails allude to it. It appears to be common knowledge to those around the former President.

Did the OLC brief Trump on the constitutionality of the scheme? If he did that goes to intent or the state of mind of the former President making his actions illegal: Georgia call, Jan 3 meeting with Pence, his public comments in regard to Pence. He knew the law and choose to ignore it.

 

They forced him out because of his association with Trump.

He gave a legal brief have you ever hired an attorney to give you all your legal options and then discussed them with them to determine which ones had the best chance. YES it was discussed in the WH and it went no where.

The EVA is a vague badly written law which by many interpretations allowed the contesting of the election as Trump considered doing based on his legal advice. The Republicans are trying to pass a bill so that could not happen again, would make it very clear that Congress CANNOT object to the state's certified by the state electors. The Democrats are opposing that. Where do you stand on it?

And why is it even a concern of Congress? What is their purpose here other than to keep the partisan witch hunt going until the midterms and even beyond if they believe it is giving them some political advantage?

 

Jail Time for J6 Committee Members? Gingrich Says It Could Happen.

​

Expect repercussions for this abusive witch-hunt.

There needs to be a price paid when authority is abused in pursuit of a political vendetta.

 

The graph I selected stopped with Obama, but it continues at a similar pace.

so, let's stop the abuse. How to do that?
Restore the filibuster to what it was at the lowest point on the chart.

Back then to filibuster a bill, 40 senators had to be present, and a senator had to hold the floor, talk until, they hoped, they could run out the clock.

What happens is that it takes so long to run out the clock, that clotures eventually succeed, and as a result, few bills are actually blocked.

Those that do succeed, only the most passionately felt issues endure the process and succeed.

And that is as it should be.

That's not evidence, that's circularism.

Provide evidence. The fact that there are criminal referrals doesn't prove they are acting as the FBI would.
It's an inadvertent fact that lots of crime was committed, and a disproportionate number of referrals are going to be made compared to other investigations.

The operative word is 'inadvertent'.

Therefore, by just naming the committee is circular reasoning, it is not evidence.

Obviously, you do not understand what constitutes evidence. But, repubs are notorious for that, given the number of times evidence was submitted to courts by Trump operatives in their efforts to overturn the election, and was shot down for failing to meet evidentiary standards and protocols. I suspect that republicans, on the whole, simply do not understand what evidence actually is, though some, I suppose, do know.

The problem with your premise is that both 'judicial philosophies' believe just as strongly as the other, that they are upholding the constitution.

You make that claim, so do we.

That is why your argument fails in terms of real world practice.

Point dismissed.

Federal laws to prevent state laws which affect outcomes are not narrow, they will affect both congressional, and presidential elections, inadvertently. The elections clause of the constitution does grant Congress a role in elections.

Your conservative view obfuscates what Republicans are really trying to do.

1. Make it more difficult to vote which disproportionately affects urban areas.
2. Subvert elections by replacing non partisan election officials in red states with Trump operatives who will be more inclined, without substantial evidence, to set aside democrat electors and replace them with republican electors.
3. Radically gerrymander districts, reduce the number of black congressional district strongholds.

Sorry, it is Republicans who are doing the 'power grab', dems are merely trying to stop republicans from there nefarious schemes.

The long and short of it is that Trump's allegation that 'The only way Democrats can win is if they rig the election', is projectionism, for it is THEY who are trying and succeeding in rigging the system, and it appears they have to do that because their policies are not winning the hearts and minds of the majority of the electorate. Rather than rig the system, what they should do is improve their sales pitch, and embrace more popular policies.

 

It's just effing hilarious how your side screams for democracy and are against vote suppression and yet everything you do is actually against democracy and want to suppress votes. Why are you against democracy? Why are you for vote suppression?

 

Evidence, please

Why do you ask questions with false premises?

 

OK, so you didn't read any of the post explaining what disqualifies an individual from becoming President, selected for the ones that apply to Donald Judas tRump. I just presented the facts, you're making accusations against ALL Democrats. I'm just laying out the facts of what could happen if Donald Judas tRump is found guilty of ANY of the crimes he's accused of.

But it's interesting that you don't seem to care about the law, your priority seems to be making sure Benedict Donald gets to run again no matter what.

 

My response is by paragraph.

Technically he “retired” but I agree he was forced out but it was for his work product for Trump not because he supported Trump. There is a difference.

The facts disagree that it went nowhere. The opinion of the OLC acting as counsel to the President is the only one that matters. The meeting is important because it was part of the campaign to persuade Pence to act contrary to the constitution.

I’m not aware of the bill but certainly would like to read it. Do you know the name or number of the bill?

It matters to more than Congress but they need to know specifically what occurred in the run up to 1/6 so they can use those facts to craft legislation to tie up loose ends in the election and transition processes so this doesn’t occur again.

Sure they’re going to attempt to use any facts uncovered to their advantage and those facts could impact the midterms but in the end we’ll be better off with the facts on the table rather than under the rug.